"In the debate of whether or not God exists God is stated, according to the Cosmological Argument, as the first uncaused cause. Part of the reason for this argument is the idea that infinite regression is impossible in many people's minds.
However if God has always existed then you are arguing at a point in infinite God simply decided he was finally bored enough to create reality. The beginning of existence period apparently has always been here because God has always been here. The problem with making this argument is it actually makes the idea of matter always existing seem even more valid. If God always existed without beginning, always had his qualities inherent to his nature, etc then why is he the only thing that could do that?"
If reality was not caused, then it has either always existed (which is not possible because we should then be in a state of heat death already), or it came from nothing (which assumes that nothing is something, which it's not). And why pass over this and jump to the question of who the Causer is without acknowledging that reality was, at the very least, caused. Who or what the Causer is, is another discussion. In other words, why not simply acknowledge that a Causer exists, because it's obvious that we were caused? The essence of what the Causer may or may not be is another topic all together.
Now, for us to know who or what the Causer may be, the Causer would have to reveal itself to us. The question then is: Has the Causer done so? You can probably guess my view here.
However if God has always existed then you are arguing at a point in infinite God simply decided he was finally bored enough to create reality. The beginning of existence period apparently has always been here because God has always been here. The problem with making this argument is it actually makes the idea of matter always existing seem even more valid. If God always existed without beginning, always had his qualities inherent to his nature, etc then why is he the only thing that could do that?"
If reality was not caused, then it has either always existed (which is not possible because we should then be in a state of heat death already), or it came from nothing (which assumes that nothing is something, which it's not). And why pass over this and jump to the question of who the Causer is without acknowledging that reality was, at the very least, caused. Who or what the Causer is, is another discussion. In other words, why not simply acknowledge that a Causer exists, because it's obvious that we were caused? The essence of what the Causer may or may not be is another topic all together.
Now, for us to know who or what the Causer may be, the Causer would have to reveal itself to us. The question then is: Has the Causer done so? You can probably guess my view here.
